Genesis
1-11 Assignment
Comments
Assignment 2
Most Hebrew scholars (and I would agree)
believe Genesis 1:1-3 may legitimately be translated in a variety of ways so as
to allow for a "less than exactly literal" interpretation. For
example, the very first word in the text is bere'sh|4t which, taken
as "pointed" (this is the term for adding the vowels to Hebrew,
originally had no vowels), should actually be translated WITHOUT USING THE WORD
"THE" – since it has no definite article (if it did, the word would
be pointed bare'sh|4t).In other words, a more accurate
translation would be "in beginning" (meaning, "to begin
with").Taking the following phrase, we should read "when God began to
create, the earth was formless and empty" (which translation implies that
when God got around to doing what he did in Genesis 1:1, the earth was ALREADY
formless and empty – God having already created it before Gen. 1:1)!Those who
opt for this translation on grammatical grounds then speculate that there could
have been long gaps of time between the initial creation event (prior to Gen.
1:1) and the event of Gen. 1:1.There are, of course, ways to get around the
grammar here to defend the more literal sequential view, but the point is that
either view (and at least one other) is possible and grammatically permissible.
Assignment 3
We must be careful in interpreting the Old
Testament NOT to read the New Testament back into the Old. This is the biggest
problem I have with saying the plurals in Gen. 1:26 refer to the Trinity. An
Israelite (even the most godly) would NEVER have interpreted his Bible this
way. He simply didn't have the revelation from God to make that interpretation
(notice that Hamilton favors the Trinitarian interpretation, but offers no OLD
TESTAMENT verse to back his suggestion that we should read the plural this
way).So the question becomes, for accurately interpreting Genesis (or any OT
passage), should we be trying to arrive at what the Israelite thought or what
WE think. I think the former is the goal, but we can always apply the OT
meaning to our day. There ARE, however, cases where the NT quotes the OT and
GIVES us an interpretation (under inspiration).In these cases, scholars argue
whether the NT changes the OT – but this is well beyond the scope of this class.
Assignment 5
Regarding Ezekiel 28 – note that there is ONE
cherub in the garden (an angelic / divine being); he is not the same as the
PLURAL cherubim sent to guard Eden AFTER the Fall. I didn't ask this in the
question, but why do you suppose Eve wasn't surprised when the
"serpent" spoke to her? Think about it.
Assignment 7
If you believe that Gen 3:15 has something to
do with the promise of a deliverer from the line of Eve, and Eve's offspring
would be enemies of the serpent's offspring (seed), where would the
"serpent" get offspring? What would the masculine serpent (he's
referred to in masculine pronouns) need to produce offspring?